When Will Labor Unions Understand The Potential Of Technology To Improve Our Lives? – Forbes

When Will Labor Unions Understand The Potential Of Technology To Improve Our Lives? – Forbes

<div _ngcontent-c20 innerhtml="

A quadrocopter drone controlled remotely transports a post package during a test flight for the Deutsche Post DHL in Bonn, western Germany on December 9, 2013. The Deutsche Post tests a system for delivering urgent packages via drone over short distances. AFP PHOTO / PATRIK STOLLARZ (Photo credit should read PATRIK STOLLARZ/AFP/Getty Images)

One of the most powerful labor unions in the United States, the&nbsp;International Brotherhood of Teamsters, run since 1998 by&nbsp;the son&nbsp;of the late&nbsp;Jimmy Hoffa, is demanding as part of its collective bargaining deal with UPS that&nbsp;the company agree not to move toward logistics models based on drones or autonomous vehicles, that it hire 10,000 more workers and that it ban deliveries after&nbsp;9 pm.

What would happen to UPS if it were to accept the demands? Simple: its rivals already researching and developing these technologies would use them instead, thereby reducing their costs, acquiring experience and offering better service, with the obvious consequences. And even if other logistics companies were to accede to the Teamsters’ demands, then it would be very likely that&nbsp;companies such as Amazon&nbsp;would simply develop&nbsp;their own logistics services&nbsp;using drones and self-driving vehicles, which would hit the logistics industry hard.

The difference between the Teamsters’ demands regarding drones and self-driving vehicles and those to protect its members who refuse to work in unsafe conditions is that refusing to incorporate technologies that improve productivity or service without compromising health and safety, and that would likely&nbsp;improve working conditions&nbsp;is simply a refusal to accept reality.

Fears of technological progress at the expense of jobs dates back to the industrial revolution, when workers had no rights and there were no welfare systems in place. But as history shows, technology only replaces those tasks it can do more efficiently that humans. Had these substitution processes not taken place, we would still be doing things as we did centuries ago. The idea that it makes sense to continue delivering things in vans driven by people who then take those packages to the customer’s door when there exist alternatives using technology is simply laughable.

Will logistics using self-driving vehicles eliminate jobs? Quite possibly. Will it improve distribution, delivery times and costs? Of course it will, otherwise it would make no economic sense to adopt that technology. Can those people who carried out a not particularly motivating job find new ways to earn a living? That will depend on their initiative and ability to retrain, along with state or corporate support. But instead of trying to block progress, labor unions should instead be working on finding alternative employment for those who lose their jobs as replacement technologies take over, along with retraining and improving working conditions.

As technology advances and comes up with more productive working methods that eliminate low-skilled jobs in the coming years, we are going to be hearing a lot more from the Teamsters and those presumably with the workers’ interests at heart. But is it really such a bad thing to eliminate jobs such as warehouse pickers, who spend the day running between shelves connected to an earphone telling them the coordinates of packages, leaving you exhausted and with voices for the rest of the day?&nbsp;What if replacing such jobs with robots frees people up to find new occupations that allow them to put their capabilities and interests to better use? Replacing people with robots might seem at first glance like&nbsp;a purely economic matter, but in reality it is about replacing jobs that humans should not have to do. Will&nbsp;life improve&nbsp;for humankind if we no longer have to carry out certain jobs? Or should we try, as the Teamsters are demanding, to&nbsp;protect jobs at all cost, ignoring or banning the fruits of technology until we find ourselves in a dead end? Is this really a sustainable approach?

There will be few certainties in the coming years.&nbsp;We may work fewer hours, we may implement&nbsp;universal basic income systems, which&nbsp;might work or not, and maybe we will continue to rely on&nbsp;cheap labor instead of robots.&nbsp;Inequality may continue to grow, and if it does, we could face huge social upheaval. There are any number of outcomes: it’s too early to know, but what is certain is that we are in a period of transition in which labor unions should be playing a key role. But unless and until labor unions &nbsp;take a more forward-thinking approach that reflects the times we live in and show an understanding that technological progress cannot be stopped and what’s more, will play an ever-bigger role in our lives, they too may find themselves redundant.&nbsp;

“>

A quadrocopter drone controlled remotely transports a post package during a test flight for the Deutsche Post DHL in Bonn, western Germany on December 9, 2013. The Deutsche Post tests a system for delivering urgent packages via drone over short distances. AFP PHOTO / PATRIK STOLLARZ (Photo credit should read PATRIK STOLLARZ/AFP/Getty Images)

One of the most powerful labor unions in the United States, theInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, run since 1998 bythe sonof the lateJimmy Hoffa, is demanding as part of its collective bargaining deal with UPS thatthe company agree not to move toward logistics models based on drones or autonomous vehicles, that it hire 10,000 more workers and that it ban deliveries after 9 pm.

What would happen to UPS if it were to accept the demands? Simple: its rivals already researching and developing these technologies would use them instead, thereby reducing their costs, acquiring experience and offering better service, with the obvious consequences. And even if other logistics companies were to accede to the Teamsters’ demands, then it would be very likely thatcompanies such as Amazonwould simply developtheir own logistics servicesusing drones and self-driving vehicles, which would hit the logistics industry hard.

The difference between the Teamsters’ demands regarding drones and self-driving vehicles and those to protect its members who refuse to work in unsafe conditions is that refusing to incorporate technologies that improve productivity or service without compromising health and safety, and that would likelyimprove working conditionsis simply a refusal to accept reality.

Fears of technological progress at the expense of jobs dates back to the industrial revolution, when workers had no rights and there were no welfare systems in place. But as history shows, technology only replaces those tasks it can do more efficiently that humans. Had these substitution processes not taken place, we would still be doing things as we did centuries ago. The idea that it makes sense to continue delivering things in vans driven by people who then take those packages to the customer’s door when there exist alternatives using technology is simply laughable.

Will logistics using self-driving vehicles eliminate jobs? Quite possibly. Will it improve distribution, delivery times and costs? Of course it will, otherwise it would make no economic sense to adopt that technology. Can those people who carried out a not particularly motivating job find new ways to earn a living? That will depend on their initiative and ability to retrain, along with state or corporate support. But instead of trying to block progress, labor unions should instead be working on finding alternative employment for those who lose their jobs as replacement technologies take over, along with retraining and improving working conditions.

As technology advances and comes up with more productive working methods that eliminate low-skilled jobs in the coming years, we are going to be hearing a lot more from the Teamsters and those presumably with the workers’ interests at heart. But is it really such a bad thing to eliminate jobs such as warehouse pickers, who spend the day running between shelves connected to an earphone telling them the coordinates of packages, leaving you exhausted and with voices for the rest of the day?What if replacing such jobs with robots frees people up to find new occupations that allow them to put their capabilities and interests to better use? Replacing people with robots might seem at first glance likea purely economic matter, but in reality it is about replacing jobs that humans should not have to do. Willlife improvefor humankind if we no longer have to carry out certain jobs? Or should we try, as the Teamsters are demanding, toprotect jobs at all cost, ignoring or banning the fruits of technology until we find ourselves in a dead end? Is this really a sustainable approach?

There will be few certainties in the coming years.We may work fewer hours, we may implementuniversal basic income systems, whichmight work or not, and maybe we will continue to rely oncheap labor instead of robots.Inequality may continue to grow, and if it does, we could face huge social upheaval. There are any number of outcomes: it’s too early to know, but what is certain is that we are in a period of transition in which labor unions should be playing a key role. But unless and until labor unions take a more forward-thinking approach that reflects the times we live in and show an understanding that technological progress cannot be stopped and what’s more, will play an ever-bigger role in our lives, they too may find themselves redundant.